List of Rangers--A horse jumping the wall--Highwaymen--Horace
Walpole robbed--Other robberies--Assaults, offences, etc., in the
present reign--A very recent case.
The nominal head or Keeper of the Park is called the _Ranger_, and the
first Keeper was made in the reign of Henry VIII. His name was George
Roper, and besides lodging, fire, etc., venison, cattle grazing, etc.,
his salary was sixpence a day; and he kept this position until his death
in 1553, when he was succeeded by Francis Nevell, whose salary was
reduced to fourpence a day.
In 1574 a coadjutor was appointed to relieve him of some of his arduous
duties, and he was a first cousin to Queen Elizabeth, being a son of
Anne Boleyn’s younger sister Mary. He was Henry Carey, first Lord
Hunsdon. This shows that the office of Keeper was one of honour, for
Hunsdon certainly could not have cared for the 4_d._ a day attached to
the office, as he was not only well-to-do, and lord of several manors,
but a Knight of the Garter, Privy Councillor, Captain of the Gentlemen
Pensioners, Governor of Berwick, Chamberlain of the Queen’s Household,
etc., etc. At Nevell’s death Lord Hunsdon became sole Keeper, and his
fee was then 8_d._ per day. At his death, in 1596, his fourth son, Sir
Edward Carey, knight, succeeded him in sole occupancy of the post. In
1607 he was followed by Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, the son of
Queen Elizabeth’s Lord Burghley; but, for some reason or other, a
coadjutor was appointed in 1610, Sir Walter Cope, who built the greater
part of Holland House, Kensington. But he only kept it for a couple of
years, and on the Earl of Salisbury’s death, in 1612, and his consequent
accession to the undivided keepership, he surrendered it for life to his
son-in-law, Sir Henry Rich, who was created Earl of Holland in 1624, and
beheaded in 1649. In 1630, he had asked, as a favour, that the
succession might be given to the Earl of Newport (afterwards the Earl of
Warwick), and at his death he asked for its reversion to Sir John Smith.
At the Commonwealth, it was proposed that Lord Howard of Escricke should
be the Keeper, but the Earl of Warwick pleaded the Earl of Holland’s
grant so effectually, that he obtained the appointment; not, however, to
enjoy it long, for, when the Parliament sold Hyde Park, the office of
Keeper was, necessarily, abolished. At the restoration, Charles II. made
his younger brother Henry, Duke of Gloucester, Keeper of the Park, but
he dying four months afterwards, the place was given (Sept., 1660), to
James Hamilton, Esq. He got from it something more substantial than any
of his predecessors, for he was granted the triangular piece of land
where the fort had been built, at the south-eastern portion of the Park,
by Hyde Park Corner, and now known as Hamilton Place. He also had a
concession of 55 acres, whereon to grow apples in the Park. Of this he
had a lease for 49 years, on condition that he surrounded it with a
brick wall eight feet high, and gave the King half the produce of the
orchard, in apples or in cider, at his Majesty’s option. Hamilton was
killed at sea, in an engagement with the Dutch, in 1673, and the office
of Keeper was vacant till 1684, when it was filled up by the appointment
of Wm. Harbord, Esq., M.P. for Launceston.
The title of “Keeper” now disappears, and in its stead the officer is
styled, as now, Ranger of St. James’s, Green and Hyde Parks, and in 1694
the Earl of Bath was made Ranger. In 1700, Edward Villiers, first Earl
of Jersey, was appointed to the post, but he only held it three years,
relinquishing it in 1703 to Henry Portman, Esq., who succeeded to the
enormous property of his cousin Sir William Portman. This gentleman must
have resigned the Rangership before his death, for, in 1714, it was
given to Walter Chetwynd, Esq., who had been Queen Anne’s Master of the
Buckhounds. He kept it until the accession of George II., when this
noble piece of patronage was bestowed upon the Earl of Essex, who having
resigned it in 1739, his place was taken by Viscount Weymouth,
afterwards Marquis of Bath, who held it until his death in 1751.
He was succeeded by Thomas, first Earl of Pomfret, who died in 1753, and
the vacant Rangership was conferred on the Earl of Ashburnham, who
resigned it in 1762. The position was then accepted by the Earl of
Orford, who kept it till 1778, when he was succeeded by General Charles
Fitzroy, afterwards Lord Southampton. He resigned it in 1783, and then
it was taken by the Earl of Sandwich, better known by his nickname of
Jemmy Twitcher; but he only retained it one year, and it was then
resumed by the Earl of Orford, until his death in 1791. Next to him came
Lord William Wyndham Grenville, who resigned in 1793, and was followed
by the Earl of Euston, afterwards Duke of Grafton. He kept in office
till 1807, and after him came Viscount Sydney, who kept it till his
death in 1831. Then the office came into the hands of royalty, in the
person of the Duke of Sussex, who was Ranger till his death in 1843,
when it was taken by his brother, the Duke of Cambridge. At his death in
1850, the Rangership was conferred on the Duke of Wellington, and on his
death on the Duke of Cambridge, the present Duke, who still holds the
office, which is entirely honorary: but he has under him a
Superintendent Ranger, with a salary of 191_l._, and a Superintendent of
Works, at 260_l._ per annum.
It was during Col. Hamilton’s keepership that Hyde Park was enclosed
with a brick wall, high enough to keep in the deer with which the Park
had been restocked; and this wall lasted till 1726, when a new wall was
built six feet six inches high on the inside, and eight feet on the
outside, a wall which one might well think could not be negotiated by
any horse. Yet a horse belonging to a Mr. Bingham did twice clear it, in
1792; once in a standing leap, and once in a flying leap. This wall
continued till 1828, when it was replaced by the iron railings which
were demolished by the mob in 1866, they in their turn giving place to
those which now surround the Park.
What are the duties of a Ranger I have no idea, except that we see his
name attached at the bottom of the rules and regulations of the Park;
but seeing that the position is honorary, and that he has a deputy, they
cannot be very onerous. One thing is certain, he seems to have no power
to put down acts of violence, which have occurred, and still are
occurring in Hyde Park, nor does the personal safety of those who use
the Park for purposes of recreation seem to be one of his functions.
Larwood says that robberies in Hyde Park were so common in the reign of
William III. that the King ordered the Guards to patrol the Park till
eleven o’clock at night, and “In addition to this a guard house was
built in the Park in 1699, ‘for securing the road against footpads,
who,’ according to the _London Post_, Dec. 16, 1699, ‘continue to be
very troublesome.’” This assertion may be correct, but there is no
mention of it in the newspaper named, nor in any other contemporaneous
journal; nor can I find any account of a highway robbery in the Park in
Feb., 1749. _The Penny London Post_, 12-15 May, 1749, says, “On
Wednesday Night (May 10) Mr. Hoskins, a Pale Ale Brewer in Tyburn Road,
was robbed by three footpads near the Serpentine River, in Hyde Park, of
a purse of silver, to the amount of eighteen pounds, which he had a
little before received at a Publick house at Kensington.”
But a famous person, no less than Horace Walpole, was robbed in the
Park, on Nov. 8, 1749, of which he gives the following account, in his
_Short Notes_. “One night, in the beginning of November, 1749, as I was
returning from Holland House by moonlight, about ten at night, I was
attacked by two highwaymen (McLean and Plunket) in Hyde Park, and the
pistol of one of them (the accomplished McLean) going off accidentally,
grazed the skin under my eye, left some marks of shot on my face, and
stunned me. The ball went through the top of the chariot, and, if I had
sat an inch nearer to the left side, must have gone through my head.”
_The General Advertiser_ of Nov. 15, 1749, says: “We hear that the Hon.
Horace Walpole Esq^{re}, who was lately robb’d in Hyde Park, has
received a letter, intimating that if he would send his Footman, to a
House in Tyburn Road, with 30 Guineas he should have his Watch restor’d,
and also that of his Coachman, provided the Footman behaved as directed
in the said letter.”
In No. 103 of _The World_ (Dec. 19, 1754) this robbery is commented on.
“An acquaintance of mine was robbed a few years ago, and very near shot
through the head by the going off of the pistol of the accomplished Mr.
MCLEAN; yet the whole affair was conducted with the greatest good
breeding on both sides. The robber, who had only taken a purse _this
way_ because he had that morning been disappointed of marrying a great
fortune, no sooner returned to his lodgings than he sent the gentleman
two letters of excuses, which, with less wit than the epistles of
Voiture, had ten times more natural and easy politeness in the turn of
their expression. In the postscript he appointed a meeting at Tyburn, at
twelve at night, where the gentleman might _purchase again_ any trifles
he had lost; and my friend has been blamed for not accepting the
rendezvous, as it seemed liable to be construed by ill-natured people
into a doubt of the _honour_ of a man who had given him all the
satisfaction in his power, for having, _unluckily_, been near shooting
him through the head.”
It was not only in Hyde Park, but all over London, that these highway
robberies took place, but, naturally, they were more prevalent at the
West End, because the inhabitants were richer. People were convoyed home
from the suburbs, such as Hampstead and Kensington, and _The Penny
London Post_ (Jan. 26-29, 1750) says: “So many Robberies have been
committed lately in the New Buildings at the Court end of the Town, that
the Servants go armed with Blunderbusses and Pistols, with both Coaches
and Chairs on Nights.”
Generally, people seem to have taken their robbery very calmly, and made
no attempt to capture the thief, but one met with his deserts at Hyde
Park Corner, as we see in _Read’s Weekly Journal_ of June 29, 1751:
“Last Friday 7-night, as Mr. Hornsby and his Lady, and Mr. Harding, were
returning from Ranelagh Gardens, in a Coach, they were stopped between
the Lock and St. George’s Hospitals, Hyde Park Corner, by a single
Highwayman, well mounted, who presented a Pistol, and demanded their
Money: and while Mr. Harding was amusing him with a few Shillings, Mr.
Hornsby clapt a Pistol to his breast and fired, which frighten’d the
Highwayman’s Horse, and gave the Coachman an Opportunity of driving off.
’Tis apprehended the Highwayman is either killed or dangerously wounded,
the Pistol touching his Breast when Mr. Hornsby fired. The next Morning,
the Highwayman’s Pistol was found by the Watch, loaded with a Brace of
Slugs.”
Singularly ungallant, too, were some of the footpads, as we may read in
_The London Chronicle_, July 28-30, 1774: “Sunday evening, two Ladies
walking in Kensington Gardens were met by two Gentlemen, who entered
into Conversation with them; and, after walking together for some time
in the Gardens, the Gentlemen begged permission to accompany them home,
to which the Ladies consented. When they came near Grosvenor Gate, the
pretended Gentlemen pulled out their pistols and demanded their money,
which amounted to near two guineas, and their gold watches, with which
they made off.”
But this is sufficient of old outrages: let us see whether we have
amended our ways, taking only a few instances in the present reign. The
following is the statement of a young woman, aged 26, as recorded in
_The Times_ of Dec. 11, 1840:--
“She had been that afternoon to Hammersmith to see a lady respecting a
situation; and on returning, at Kensington, was induced by the bright
moonlight to proceed through the Park, as the nearest way to town. She,
however, by mistake took the footpath to Kensington Gardens--instead of
that at the side of the carriage road, which closely abuts on the high
road; and had not proceeded far when she passed a tall, stout man, of
respectable appearance, who followed her; and, on approaching the
one-arched bridge, accosted her, and wanted to enter into conversation,
which she avoided by walking fast. About the centre of the bridge, he
suddenly caught hold of her, pushed her against the balustrades of the
bridge, which at that spot consists of ornamental iron railings about 3
feet high, and forcibly attempted to take liberties with her, which she
strongly resisted; and, being a powerful woman, struggled desperately
with him, calling out ‘Murder’ at the utmost pitch of her voice; when
the villain suddenly stooped down, and catching hold of her legs, threw
her, with great violence, over the bridge into the water, and instantly
effected his escape. From her appearance, when brought to the Receiving
House, it was evident that she had fallen head first into the water, as
her head and shoulders were thickly incrusted with the mud at the bottom
of the stream.” I fail to trace that this ruffian was ever caught.
_The Times_, Oct. 13, 1842:--
“HYDE PARK AFTER DARK.
“Saturday evening, about half past 8, as a person named Newport was
walking along Rotten Row, he was accosted by a man who asked him the
time, and said, ‘Let me see your watch.’ Mr. Newport refused to tell
him, or pull out his watch, upon which the ruffian instantly seized him
by the collar, and said, ‘You are my prisoner, you have been acting
improperly’; but on Mr. Newport immediately calling out ‘Murder!
Police!’ his assailant let go his hold, and running away, effected his
escape.”--“On Sunday night, about five minutes before 10, a young man
named Pummell was returning from town along the carriage road leading
from Hyde Park Corner to the Kensington Gate, which is close to the high
road, when he was stopped by a man, who said to him, ‘Are you going to
stand half a pint of beer, old fellow?’ Pummell told him ‘he should not,
indeed’; when the fellow said, ‘You had better stand it before you go
any further.’ Pummell, however, repeated he would not, and was walking
away, when another man, whom he had not before observed, jumped from the
ditch under the rails at the side of the path, and said, ‘We are hard
up, and on the tramp, so you must give us half a pint of beer, or
something, before you go on.’ Pummell, becoming alarmed, raised a
walking stick he had in his hand, and called loudly for assistance, upon
which, one of the fellows snatched at his stick, but only caught hold of
the tassel, which was torn away in the attempt. Pummell then ran off, at
his utmost speed, towards the Kensington Gate, from which he was not far
distant, and the two fellows ran across the Park, and effected their
escape.”
A few years later, things were not much better, as we find in a letter
in _The Times_ of Aug. 7th, 1847. “It is now proved beyond a doubt that
any blackguard may insult, attack and rob you with perfect impunity,
unless you can induce him to wait patiently whilst you scour the park in
search of a policeman to take possession of him. Here is a case in
point. I was in the park last evening. Some children were amusing
themselves with a kite. Two blackguards crossed their path, and at once
took possession of their ball of string. I desired them to return it,
otherwise I should give them in charge. They very complacently glanced
around them, and then began to pour forth, within the hearing of several
women and children, a torrent of the most filthy language. A gentleman
who came up at the time interfered, and the abuse was at once turned
upon him; the intention of the men being, evidently, to create a
disturbance, and then profit by it. I at once went in search of a
policeman: after walking about a quarter of a mile, I met a
park-keeper. His answer to my request was, ‘Oh! I can’t interfere,
you’ll find a policeman somewhere.’ I proceeded in my search, and at
last found one on the other side of the Serpentine, amongst the bathers:
he very readily accompanied me, although leaving his especial duty, and
the matter was soon settled.”
Complaints were also made of the inadequacy of the police during the
building of the Great Exhibition of 1851. Crowds used to go every Sunday
to see how it had progressed, and a dweller in Park Place thus writes to
_The Times_ (_vide_ Feb. 18, 1851): “I will content myself by merely
stating that scarcely a Sunday now passes that the disturbance does not
terminate in a fight. On one occasion, a soldier and a civilian, each
striving to go contrary ways through the gate, at length came to blows.
On a subsequent Sunday a similar conflict took place between a soldier
and a policeman; and yesterday two men were fighting under my
sitting-room windows for some considerable time. This latter encounter,
especially, was not a mere skirmish; on the contrary, a ring was made,
the men were each backed by a second: in fact, there was all the formula
of a regular pitched battle.”
Take, again, a short letter in _The Times_ of March 15th, 1855: “Allow
me, through your columns, to caution the frequenters of Hyde Park
against a gang of ruffians, who are in the habit of accosting ladies and
female servants, and, under the pretence of asking the time of day,
endeavouring to pick their pockets. Several ladies of my acquaintance,
when walking in the Park with their children, have had narrow escapes of
being robbed in this manner.”
In _The Times_ of July 1st, 1858, a Resident near Hyde Park writes that
“it is perfectly notorious that in all of our parks, but most especially
in Hyde Park, it is impolitic, in the highest degree, for young girls to
take exercise unattended. I, for one, have been obliged to prohibit my
daughter, aged 13 years, from taking her hitherto pleasant morning
walks, in company with her little brother, for precisely the same reason
as a thousand other parents could assign--namely, because of the
hoary-headed ruffians, dressed in the garb of gentlemen, who
systematically lay in wait for young girls, with an intent too horrible
for mention.”
Here is a sketch of the Park, in the _Pall Mall Gazette_ of May 21,
1866, endorsed by being copied into _The Times_, May 22nd:--
“THE POLICE OF HYDE PARK.
“Urgent remonstrances have recently been made to the Chief Commissioner
of Works, from various quarters, and, more especially, by the parochial
authorities of St. George’s, Hanover Square, against the misrule and
vice which is allowed by the Ranger of Hyde Park to prevail unchecked
within its precincts after the Park is closed at night. The gates are
then locked, the park-keepers go to their homes, the lodge-keepers go to
bed, and the Park is utterly given up to hoards of tramps and roughs of
both sexes, who, during the summer months, pass their nights there. Any
decent persons caught in crossing the Park at the hour for locking up,
have no choice but to remain prisoners until the morning, if they are
not sufficiently active to climb the iron railings; for it is a point of
professional honour with the lodge-keepers, to resist all attempts at
rousing them after they have once turned in. A number of prostitutes,
too, of the very lowest grade, ply, unmolested, in the Park, their
dismal calling, spreading around them disease, until they are themselves
stricken down by it, and perish in the neighbouring workhouses.
“And it is this wretched fact that has, at last, set the authorities of
St. George’s Parish in action. It is now required that the incompetent
and useless park-keepers, to whose care the Park has hitherto been
intrusted, shall be superseded, and that they shall be replaced by the
Metropolitan Police, who shall supervise and patrol its area by night,
as well as by day; that policemen shall be on duty all night, at all its
gates, to let out persons who may have been accidentally shut in; and
that two or three of the mounted police shall be stationed in Rotten
Row, between the hours of 12 and 2 p.m. and of 5 and 8 p.m., to keep in
check the galloping snobs, grooms and horsebreakers of both sexes, by
whose reckless brutality the lives and limbs of her Majesty’s lieges are
daily endangered. To effect this reform, mere management, not money, is
wanted.
“The discreditable condition in which the police of Hyde Park now is,
distinctly indicates want of ability or attention on the part of its
Ranger; and the costly landscape and flower gardening, so extensively
and successfully carried out by Mr. Cowper, as clearly shows that that
condition is owing to no lack of funds. It is of far more importance to
the inhabitants of the West End of London, that the Park to which they
and their families resort should be orderly, cleanly and well watched,
than that it should be picturesque and gay with flowers: and, in the
case of Hyde Park, there seems to be no reason why its police should not
be as effective as its horticulture.”
It would almost seem as if everyone was doing their utmost to spoil the
Park, and divert it from its assumed purpose of reasonable recreation;
for, at one time, the betting men got hold of it, and made it the scene
of their unhealthy calling, _vide_ a letter in _The Times_ of June 1,
1866:--“I have frequently occasion to cross Hyde Park between the hours
of 12 and 1, and I have watched with surprise the operations of a
numerous betting ring, the members of which hold daily undisturbed
possession of a large group of trees in the centre of the Park. It is
becoming so popular a resort of servants, that I was not astonished,
last week, to hear of a footman, when applying for a situation,
stipulating for a mid-day walk in the Park. Yesterday, I saw one of the
park-keepers apparently busily engaged in the ring.” And this letter was
fully endorsed in another which appeared in next day’s _Times_.
If betting were allowed, why not other forms of gambling? So we find
that on June 25, 1866, at Marlborough Street, Thomas Davids, who is
described as being “well-dressed,” was charged with setting up a
roulette table in Hyde Park. Inspector Green, of the A Division, said he
was in Hyde Park on June 23rd about six o’clock, when he saw the
prisoner with a roulette table, and a large number of persons round him.
The prisoner was playing, and on seeing him take up some money from the
board, he seized him, and charged him with gambling. The prisoner
admitted that he was playing at roulette, but he was not aware it was
illegal. He found £1 10_s._ in gold and £1 12_s._ in silver in his
possession. The prisoner’s father was a respectable person. The
prisoner, in defence, said that he was in such a novel position that he
hardly knew what to say. Mr. Tyrwhitt said everybody must know that
gambling in the parks was not permitted. He considered the prisoner’s
conduct most mischievous in robbing persons of their money, for it was
well known that the chances in favour of the keeper of the gaming-table
were 100 per cent. Davids was fined 40_s._ and costs.
It is impossible to chronicle all the scandals of the Park, we may think
they belong to a past age, and that Board Schools and their enlightening
influences, and with the “sweetness and light” they should have brought
with them, have for ever banished evil from it, but I will only give two
modern instances, and I have done with this portion of its history.
First take a letter in _The Times_ of Dec. 26, 1891, in which the writer
says: “It is impossible for any respectable woman, after dark, to pass
through even from the Marble Arch to Hyde Park Corner, without being
insulted by men, or groups of low women. For young people who have to
come from the other side to work, there is no alternative for them, on
their return home at night, but to walk right round; as after dark no
respectable girl could pass through, unaccompanied, without
molestation.”
And, last of all, because I have not chronicled one out of the hundreds
of atrocities committed by soldiers in the Park--assaults, robberies,
vile accusations, etc.-I will give a very mild and recent case reported
in the _Daily Graphic_, May 22nd, 1894:--
“VIOLENT GUARDSMEN.
“At the Marlborough Street Police Court, Augustus Fitzgerald, 24, and
Frank Burton, 24, privates in the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, were
charged with being drunk and disorderly, and using obscene language in
Hyde Park, and Fitzgerald was also charged with assaulting
Police-Sergeant Cooke, and Burton with assaulting two constables in the
execution of their duty. Sergeant Cooke stated that about 12 o’clock on
Saturday night, he was on duty near the Marble Arch. A gentleman
complained to him that the prisoners had pushed him and his wife, and
also used very bad language. Both prisoners then attempted to get at the
gentleman, and used very bad language. The sergeant advised them to go
quietly to barracks. Fitzgerald tried to get Burton to go, but he would
not, and the officers had to take him into custody. Fitzgerald then
struck the sergeant on the face, cutting his cheek. A constable then
took Burton, and the sergeant, Fitzgerald. The latter then kicked his
captor on the knee. The officers blew their whistles, and assistance
arrived. While the sergeant was struggling with Fitzgerald, Burton came
up and kicked him, making his leg black and blue. Fitzgerald went
quietly to the station, but Burton continued to struggle so violently
that the ambulance was sent for, and then it took seven constables to
get him on it. The prisoners used most disgusting language to the
officer who took the charge, and when in the cells, kicked the doors
till they loosened the frames. The constable who was on duty with
Sergeant Cooke corroborated his statement, and said that Fitzgerald
kicked him in the lower part of the abdomen. Both officers are now on
the sick list. Fitzgerald said, if he struck the sergeant, it was a pure
accident. Burton asserted that the constables shoved them about, and
prevented them leaving the park by the nearest gate. An officer present
gave Fitzgerald a bad character, and Burton a fairly good one. Mr.
Hannay sentenced them to one month’s hard labour each.”
“EXCITING SCENE IN HYDE PARK.
“Last night[58] an extraordinary and violent scene (a correspondent
writes) took place in Hyde Park. In the evening the park is now
frequented by large crowds of people, who listen to speeches,
recitations, &c., delivered near the Marble Arch, and considerable
hostility has, it appears, been aroused by the action of some soldiers
in persistently creating a disturbance among the crowd, with the object
of breaking up any meeting that may be held. Last night, while a small
knot of people were listening to a reciter, four soldiers, whose
movements had hitherto been unobserved, suddenly ran in, and without
giving any warning flung themselves with great force on those on the
outside of the crowd. A struggle at once ensued, and before many moments
had elapsed the soldiers found themselves surrounded by an infuriated
crowd of some 300 persons, who pelted them with hands full of pebbles
picked up from the ground, and, at the same time, indulged freely in
hooting. The soldiers struck out vigorously to right and left with
their canes, retiring close together, and for some time managed to keep
the crowd at a respectful distance. One of them, however, being struck
suddenly in the face with a missile, drew his bayonet, and breaking away
from his comrades, furiously charged the crowd. Immediately a general
stampede took place, but though the enraged soldier speedily gave up the
pursuit, it was some minutes before he sheathed his weapon. No sooner
had he done so than the crowd again returned, and forming round the
troopers, recommenced booing and hooting, though at a longer distance
than before. By this time, however, notification of the occurrence had
been conveyed to the police, and they coming up, were able, though not
without difficulty, to get the soldiers out of the park without further
violence from the mob. No one, fortunately, was seriously injured, but
both the soldiers and some civilians had their faces cut.”--_Globe_,
March 26, 1895.
[Illustration]
[Illustration: decorative bar]